Hi Shlomi,
<<<<.........we're calling the "Solver Evaluation Edition".........>>
<<I did not say such a thing was not good.>>
Hmmm, we're getting into a triple negative here. I really didn't think
you would consider such a thing as not good. My intent was merely to inform
you of the terminology I'm adopting.
<<I consider such a thing as a kludge. But I guess that I unless I volunteer
to modify FC-Pro to work in both modes myself, then I cannot complain.>>
I'll reiterate that the wisest approach would be to do the conversion
outside of the body of the FcPro code itself. One of the reasons I say this
is that I know the source and I know how messy it is and how hard it is to
follow, and also my recollection of the difficult problems we had in
developing it and testing that it did what it was supposed to do. I
wouldn't consider that approach a kludge; it's better described as an
architectural design decision. If the body of the code were modified, I
would not approve using it in the standard edition of FcPro, for the
principal reason that it would be a substantial project to make a thorought
test of it.
<<Hmmm. Single-Card moves may make the solution longer than it really is.
However, I agree to this workaround if only it won't be implemented for each
one of FCS' moves, just for the stack->empty stack ones.>>
Right on. I might have mentioned that. Stack-to-occupied stack
movements do not have to be treated. Only stack to empty stack moves. But
we need also to consider moves to the foundation. What you might give up in
solution length by expanding such moves to their single-card equivalents,
you would probably more than gain back by omitting all moves which would be
automatic moves to the foundation. There is an explicit formula for such
moves. Are you aware of that?
<<30% is something the user is bound to get into. But %70 success is better
than nothing.>>
Note also, that to make it still further "better than nothing" in its
current interim form, FCS's full solution is output to a text file, where it
can be read. Not very convenient, I'd agree, but at least there's a way to
get at it.
I now have that Build 6 in good enough shape to pass along to you, and
it will follow in a separate side E-mail.
Best regards, ---------------Adrian
Received on Sun Dec 09 2001 - 20:35:04 IST